There are several things about the Gospels that don't add up, but the biggie is how all of these villains line up against Jesus to conspire and bring him down (the Pharisees, the Romans, Pilate, Judas, Satan) when the actual goal all along was for Jesus to meet the fate they brought down upon him. It's something that even major religious sects do a poor job of reconciling, and they almost uniformly continue to cast players like Judas and Pilate in a negative light even though those players are instrumental in the entire purpose of Jesus' existence, his martyrdom.
I felt that The Last Temptation of Christ was really the only work that successfully(ish) strove to put those pieces in a narrative order that make some kind of workable logic.
I'm an atheist but in church today (I work there), gospel of john reading, it is said that pilot isn't to be faulted as he was fulfilling a prophecy... but that judas is the real one to blame.
I started saying this as though I was disagreeing with you but I just realized it only emphasizes your point. especially since I believe it's only said in the one gospel.
Plus it's about the only part of the film (other than the absence of squiditude) that doesn't follow the comic so closely it feels stifled by it. I thought Watchmen was one of the best Moore adaptations, but it is almost slavishly devoted to the original, at least on a surface level.
I still don't know how I feel about the film. I think part of that has to do with the fact that I knew the source material so well prior to seeing the film that it's the kind of thing that really distorts your perception of how successful the film actually was. Much the same way fans of the books endlessly defend the not-so-good cinematic versions of the Harry Potter series and The Hunger Games, I'm not sure my objectivity is 100% intact, thanks to the film being so slavishly devoted to the material.
My favorite cut of the film is indeed the Ultimate Cut, which clocks in at almost 4 hours, and it's such an engaging and fascinating experience, but I'm so close to it I don't know if it's "good" or not anymore. It's definitely unlike just about anything else out there, and it's always gorgeous to look at.
I wasn't even a fan of the book until the movie was coming out and I sort of feel this way. I think it's phenomenal and I have watched it a lot. but when people ask me if it's good I find it really hard to reply.
I came to it under similar circumstances, but I've gotten pretty comfortable with the idea that the movie just isn't that great.
Zack Snyder isn't an actor's director. The acting alternates between stolid understatement and Greek tragedy. There is quite a great deal of room in between those extremes that isn't occupied frequently, which I think speaks to Snyder's larger problem: I really don't think he gets tone. This is probably why whenever we're in those war room scenes we have ridiculous Strangelove caricatures that turns the film into something approaching (but not committing to) self-parody. At other moments, we have some deadly sincerity that feels a bit cheap positioned between such borderline farce. It's incredible that a movie that is actually very well-structured can feel so fragmented, and I really think it has everything to do with some real dramatic confusion behind the camera.
This becomes some pretty serious tension in the action. Watchmen was not an action-packed book, but hey, this is a comic book film, so let's kick some ass. I'm sympathetic to this, but again, the tonal choices are pretty questionable. We have almost two full acts of having it suggested that Dan and the others were really sort of pathetic, and that their actions were morally questionable. But once he and Lorie don the suits, the camera treats them with all the reverence offered to Superman, complete with swells of music. A smarter film would have brought some of that borderline self-parody to bear on moments like those, but instead the film sabotages its own well-established themes in the service of some kinda lame superhero film tropes. You can make the argument that it tries, but the film is clearly in love with its slo-mo badassery in much the same way 300 had been. It's the wrong choice for material that is so eminently not about stable "heroes."
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I had a really long reply to Variable's post and the thread monster ate it. It said I had posted a reply, but no reply existed.
Crap.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think one of the largest issues with Watchmen is that Adrian is so central to the plot and the audience's reaction to what he does, but he's barely in the film.
Then again, he's barely in the book.
Thinking back on all of this, you know how probably could have gotten this movie perfect? Cronenberg.
There are several things about the Gospels that don't add up, but the biggie is how all of these villains line up against Jesus to conspire and bring him down (the Pharisees, the Romans, Pilate, Judas, Satan) when the actual goal all along was for Jesus to meet the fate they brought down upon him. It's something that even major religious sects do a poor job of reconciling, and they almost uniformly continue to cast players like Judas and Pilate in a negative light even though those players are instrumental in the entire purpose of Jesus' existence, his martyrdom.
I felt that The Last Temptation of Christ was really the only work that successfully(ish) strove to put those pieces in a narrative order that make some kind of workable logic.
I'm an atheist but in church today (I work there), gospel of john reading, it is said that pilot isn't to be faulted as he was fulfilling a prophecy... but that judas is the real one to blame.
I started saying this as though I was disagreeing with you but I just realized it only emphasizes your point. especially since I believe it's only said in the one gospel.
Let's try this again, thread.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended to the dead.* On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
That's the Apostles' Creed (not, sadly, a fantastically bizarre video game), and odds are it's said at your church. Clearly, it vilifies Pilate, as does most of the loose confederation of Christianity, which is strange for at least two reasons-
1) Pilate didn't really do all that much. Jesus' condemnation was at the behest of the Pharisees and the political games being played within the area.
2) So, what happens if Pilate (or Judas, or Peter, or the Pharisees) came to their senses and stopped the crucifixion? They're the villains and cowards of this tale, right? What's the lesson here? Blaming anyone for enabling the most important moment of Christianity seems, at its most polite, completely fucking stupid. "Oh, that damnable Judas! How dare he ensure our eternal salvation!"
The Last Temptation of Christ tries to deal with those paradoxes in faith, and while I don't know that it clears the bar 100%, it comes close, and I really appreciate that Scorsese actualizes that inequity by basically telling traditional interpretations to go take a leap. It keeps Jesus both magic AND human, and I think seeing that incarnate rather than churning through a fluffy and genteel Sunday School story is what ruffled all those feathers. Put into a realistic context (and hey, ain't Jesus supposed to be real?), Jesus is not only a raving lunatic and a mysterious wizard, but he's also prone to passionate violence and basic weirdness.
Why people can't reconcile the Jesus the read about with the Jesus they can see doing the same exact things, I'll never guess.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Isn't that the cartoon with the cross-dressing hutt that talks with an effeminate Southern drawl like Truman Capote?
Yeah, keep those brilliant ideas coming, Lucas. You've scraped the barrel on this franchise so hard, you're picking up splinters from the floorboards it rests upon.
That Star Wars: Clone Wars animated movie is on TV. I flicked over to see how bad it is.
After less then a minute, I can tell you.
SO SO bad.
Nothing about this thing is even mediocre. Every single aspect of this film is terrible beyond even the wildest dreams of the PT.
I disagree with this. The Clone Wars film is nowhere near the prequel trilogy's terrible quality. It's mediocre at best. It acts like a pilot to a tv series, not a big budget film though it did have a decent scale. The story isn't groundbreaking, yet it does not have the plot-holes that the prequels did. Then again, I'm in the minority who like Ahsoka.
I wish I could say the same about WB and their DC properties.
Well, that's just because the DC division at Warners has its head completely up its ass.
It's not like Marvel's formula is mystical or inscrutable.
"Talent" + "Budget" + "People who give a shit" + "Respect for the property" = McDuck's Silo of Gold
Bravo, Ross. You win at forums.
It's weird to me, because Warners definitely understood that formula with the Harry Potter series. Those books (and the scripts that were generated from them) are, to say politely, not so good. At least not from a narrative or cohesive standpoint.
Harry Potter was JK Rowling's doing. She insisted on British kids to headline the cast and she coordinated with the writers of the script.
Steven Spielberg was originally set to direct, but since he wanted Haley Joel Osment to be Potter. When JK Rowling set her foot down, he bailed.
Not to knock HJO but Harry Potter he aint.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I wish I could say the same about WB and their DC properties.
Well, that's just because the DC division at Warners has its head completely up its ass.
It's not like Marvel's formula is mystical or inscrutable.
"Talent" + "Budget" + "People who give a shit" + "Respect for the property" = McDuck's Silo of Gold
Bravo, Ross. You win at forums.
It's weird to me, because Warners definitely understood that formula with the Harry Potter series. Those books (and the scripts that were generated from them) are, to say politely, not so good. At least not from a narrative or cohesive standpoint.
Harry Potter was JK Rowling's doing. She insisted on British kids to headline the cast and she coordinated with the writers of the script.
Steven Spielberg was originally set to direct, but since he wanted Haley Joel Osment to be Potter. When JK Rowling set her foot down, he bailed.
Not to knock HJO but Harry Potter he aint.
Spielberg also wanted the stories to take place in America, not England. Thankfully this didn't happen.
There are several things about the Gospels that don't add up, but the biggie is how all of these villains line up against Jesus to conspire and bring him down (the Pharisees, the Romans, Pilate, Judas, Satan) when the actual goal all along was for Jesus to meet the fate they brought down upon him. It's something that even major religious sects do a poor job of reconciling, and they almost uniformly continue to cast players like Judas and Pilate in a negative light even though those players are instrumental in the entire purpose of Jesus' existence, his martyrdom.
I felt that The Last Temptation of Christ was really the only work that successfully(ish) strove to put those pieces in a narrative order that make some kind of workable logic.
I'm an atheist but in church today (I work there), gospel of john reading, it is said that pilot isn't to be faulted as he was fulfilling a prophecy... but that judas is the real one to blame.
I started saying this as though I was disagreeing with you but I just realized it only emphasizes your point. especially since I believe it's only said in the one gospel.
Let's try this again, thread.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended to the dead.* On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
That's the Apostles' Creed (not, sadly, a fantastically bizarre video game), and odds are it's said at your church. Clearly, it vilifies Pilate, as does most of the loose confederation of Christianity, which is strange for at least two reasons-
1) Pilate didn't really do all that much. Jesus' condemnation was at the behest of the Pharisees and the political games being played within the area.
2) So, what happens if Pilate (or Judas, or Peter, or the Pharisees) came to their senses and stopped the crucifixion? They're the villains and cowards of this tale, right? What's the lesson here? Blaming anyone for enabling the most important moment of Christianity seems, at its most polite, completely fucking stupid. "Oh, that damnable Judas! How dare he ensure our eternal salvation!"
The Last Temptation of Christ tries to deal with those paradoxes in faith, and while I don't know that it clears the bar 100%, it comes close, and I really appreciate that Scorsese actualizes that inequity by basically telling traditional interpretations to go take a leap. It keeps Jesus both magic AND human, and I think seeing that incarnate rather than churning through a fluffy and genteel Sunday School story is what ruffled all those feathers. Put into a realistic context (and hey, ain't Jesus supposed to be real?), Jesus is not only a raving lunatic and a mysterious wizard, but he's also prone to passionate violence and basic weirdness.
Why people can't reconcile the Jesus the read about with the Jesus they can see doing the same exact things, I'll never guess.
It says he suffered under Pontius Pilate. As in, under his care/rule/etc, he suffered.
Pontius Pilate is not seen as unrepetantly evil or something. Even the Gospels themselves emphasize the pharisees role more then his.
That Star Wars: Clone Wars animated movie is on TV. I flicked over to see how bad it is.
After less then a minute, I can tell you.
SO SO bad.
Nothing about this thing is even mediocre. Every single aspect of this film is terrible beyond even the wildest dreams of the PT.
I disagree with this. The Clone Wars film is nowhere near the prequel trilogy's terrible quality. It's mediocre at best. It acts like a pilot to a tv series, not a big budget film though it did have a decent scale. The story isn't groundbreaking, yet it does not have the plot-holes that the prequels did. Then again, I'm in the minority who like Ahsoka.
It's awful. Acting, writing, animation, pacing, everything. Calling this thing mediocre is an insult to every movie that has ever aspired to adequacy.
Giving Jesus temptations - making it difficult for him to do the right thing - makes Jesus a more impressive and heroic figure. If something's easy to do it's not much of an accomplishment. C.S. Lewis said that the fact that he never gambled wasn't impressive because he had never been tempted to gamble.
So I finally got around to seeing Akira for the first time. I want opinions on the flick from seasoned film board critics like Atomic Toss and so forth.
I thought it was a somewhat nonsensical plot with mediocre character design coupled with astounding animation and music/atmosphere. I don't really know how to feel about it!
But what's wrong with nonsensical plots?
(I really liked Akira when I saw it when I was 13 or so but I haven't seen it since.)
Plus it's about the only part of the film (other than the absence of squiditude) that doesn't follow the comic so closely it feels stifled by it. I thought Watchmen was one of the best Moore adaptations, but it is almost slavishly devoted to the original, at least on a surface level.
I still don't know how I feel about the film. I think part of that has to do with the fact that I knew the source material so well prior to seeing the film that it's the kind of thing that really distorts your perception of how successful the film actually was. Much the same way fans of the books endlessly defend the not-so-good cinematic versions of the Harry Potter series and The Hunger Games, I'm not sure my objectivity is 100% intact, thanks to the film being so slavishly devoted to the material.
My favorite cut of the film is indeed the Ultimate Cut, which clocks in at almost 4 hours, and it's such an engaging and fascinating experience, but I'm so close to it I don't know if it's "good" or not anymore. It's definitely unlike just about anything else out there, and it's always gorgeous to look at.
I love the comic but feel indifferent to the film. I haven't seen the ultimate cut but the film just didn't really engage me.
I think it's just that you can't do a film like a comic.
He's a much better actor than Daniel Radcliffe though so uh, I kinda agree with Spielberg here. They've got speech coaches and whatever, could have faked the accent.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
He's a much better actor than Daniel Radcliffe though so uh, I kinda agree with Spielberg here. They've got speech coaches and whatever, could have faked the accent.
They weren't going to fake the accent. Harry was going to be an American along with everybody else, excluding non-British characters.
That Star Wars: Clone Wars animated movie is on TV. I flicked over to see how bad it is.
After less then a minute, I can tell you.
SO SO bad.
Nothing about this thing is even mediocre. Every single aspect of this film is terrible beyond even the wildest dreams of the PT.
I disagree with this. The Clone Wars film is nowhere near the prequel trilogy's terrible quality. It's mediocre at best. It acts like a pilot to a tv series, not a big budget film though it did have a decent scale. The story isn't groundbreaking, yet it does not have the plot-holes that the prequels did. Then again, I'm in the minority who like Ahsoka.
It's awful. Acting, writing, animation, pacing, everything. Calling this thing mediocre is an insult to every movie that has ever aspired to adequacy.
What makes it worse is that it's actually a string of mediocre episodes from the middle of the season. It cuts the episodes that establish the action and the climatic episode, which adds another level of narrative confusion.
That Star Wars: Clone Wars animated movie is on TV. I flicked over to see how bad it is.
After less then a minute, I can tell you.
SO SO bad.
Nothing about this thing is even mediocre. Every single aspect of this film is terrible beyond even the wildest dreams of the PT.
I disagree with this. The Clone Wars film is nowhere near the prequel trilogy's terrible quality. It's mediocre at best. It acts like a pilot to a tv series, not a big budget film though it did have a decent scale. The story isn't groundbreaking, yet it does not have the plot-holes that the prequels did. Then again, I'm in the minority who like Ahsoka.
It's awful. Acting, writing, animation, pacing, everything. Calling this thing mediocre is an insult to every movie that has ever aspired to adequacy.
Its a tv pilot that was released to cinemas because WB wanted a Star Wars film released under their name. More correctly they threatened to cancel the entire tv show if Lucas didn't allow them to string the first 3-4 episodes into a film. Since Lucas had already sunk several millions into the show and set up an entire unit of his company to produce them, he folded.
Thats why its so bad, its TV quality CGI that was meant to be shown in several parts on the small screen. The show is fuck awesome and the CGI on the last season was very good. Not everything bad about Star Wars is George Lucas' fault... except the Truman Capote the Hutt.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It says he suffered under Pontius Pilate. As in, under his care/rule/etc, he suffered.
Pontius Pilate is not seen as unrepetantly evil or something. Even the Gospels themselves emphasize the pharisees role more then his.
I think a lot of that actually has to do with a much more modern effort to absolve the ancient Judaic sects of Christ's martyrdom as to reduce inflammatory anti-semetic rhetoric. Romans, today, get most of the blame for Christ's death, despite the fact that it was much more at the feet of the Jewish leadership of the day.
Whichever the case, it doesn't matter if Jews killed Christ or if Romans killed Christ because, really, isn't it pretty important that Christ ends up dead on that crucifix regardless? Christ needs to die in order to be Christ.
I'd argue against those points about Watchmen, but I'd need to watch it again, and since the (IMO far superior) theatrical cut isn't available on Blu-Ray, that will never happen.
Plus it's about the only part of the film (other than the absence of squiditude) that doesn't follow the comic so closely it feels stifled by it. I thought Watchmen was one of the best Moore adaptations, but it is almost slavishly devoted to the original, at least on a surface level.
I still don't know how I feel about the film. I think part of that has to do with the fact that I knew the source material so well prior to seeing the film that it's the kind of thing that really distorts your perception of how successful the film actually was. Much the same way fans of the books endlessly defend the not-so-good cinematic versions of the Harry Potter series and The Hunger Games, I'm not sure my objectivity is 100% intact, thanks to the film being so slavishly devoted to the material.
My favorite cut of the film is indeed the Ultimate Cut, which clocks in at almost 4 hours, and it's such an engaging and fascinating experience, but I'm so close to it I don't know if it's "good" or not anymore. It's definitely unlike just about anything else out there, and it's always gorgeous to look at.
I love the comic but feel indifferent to the film. I haven't seen the ultimate cut but the film just didn't really engage me.
I think it's just that you can't do a film like a comic.
I think Sin City proved that's not entirely true, but I will agree that just plastering the pages on the screen isn't the same thing as making a successful movie. When you read, especially something visual like comics, your brain filters out all the ridiculous shit and lets you focus on the story and details. If it didn't, Jim Lee would never work again.
What you have to do is create a world in which the comic fits. I feel that both Chris Nolan and Jon Favreau did this admirably.
0
Options
The JudgeThe Terwilliger CurvesRegistered Userregular
What you have to do is create a world in which the comic fits. I feel that both Chris Nolan and Jon Favreau did this admirably.
We kicked it around one night on what would happen if you went back and switched Favreau to Batman and Nolan to Iron Man but made them keep the same script and same cast.
Last pint: Turmoil CDA / Barley Brown's - Untappd: TheJudge_PDX
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
What you have to do is create a world in which the comic fits. I feel that both Chris Nolan and Jon Favreau did this admirably.
We kicked it around one night on what would happen if you went back and switched Favreau to Batman and Nolan to Iron Man but made them keep the same script and same cast.
I think the answer to that hypothetical was somewhat answered by Cowboys & Aliens.
Favreau goes for the grimdark with a more-than-capable cast, but I don't think the material stood up to the tone they were trying to achieve (which, admittedly, is all over the goddamned place).
Bottom line: I think Favreau could have pulled off Batman Begins (probably with a little better photography of the action scenes), but he couldn't touch The Dark Knight with a ten-foot pole.
Plus it's about the only part of the film (other than the absence of squiditude) that doesn't follow the comic so closely it feels stifled by it. I thought Watchmen was one of the best Moore adaptations, but it is almost slavishly devoted to the original, at least on a surface level.
I still don't know how I feel about the film. I think part of that has to do with the fact that I knew the source material so well prior to seeing the film that it's the kind of thing that really distorts your perception of how successful the film actually was. Much the same way fans of the books endlessly defend the not-so-good cinematic versions of the Harry Potter series and The Hunger Games, I'm not sure my objectivity is 100% intact, thanks to the film being so slavishly devoted to the material.
My favorite cut of the film is indeed the Ultimate Cut, which clocks in at almost 4 hours, and it's such an engaging and fascinating experience, but I'm so close to it I don't know if it's "good" or not anymore. It's definitely unlike just about anything else out there, and it's always gorgeous to look at.
I love the comic but feel indifferent to the film. I haven't seen the ultimate cut but the film just didn't really engage me.
I think it's just that you can't do a film like a comic.
I think Sin City proved that's not entirely true
Much as I dislike that movie, you may have a point because I have no doubt that if I read the comic I'd find it about equal in quality to the movie.
What you have to do is create a world in which the comic fits. I feel that both Chris Nolan and Jon Favreau did this admirably.
We kicked it around one night on what would happen if you went back and switched Favreau to Batman and Nolan to Iron Man but made them keep the same script and same cast.
I think the answer to that hypothetical was somewhat answered by Cowboys & Aliens.
Favreau goes for the grimdark with a more-than-capable cast, but I don't think the material stood up to the tone they were trying to achieve (which, admittedly, is all over the goddamned place).
Bottom line: I think Favreau could have pulled off Batman Begins (probably with a little better photography of the action scenes), but he couldn't touch The Dark Knight with a ten-foot pole.
After IM2 and CaA I feel confident in saying that the first Iron Man wasn't(just) Favreau.
What you have to do is create a world in which the comic fits. I feel that both Chris Nolan and Jon Favreau did this admirably.
We kicked it around one night on what would happen if you went back and switched Favreau to Batman and Nolan to Iron Man but made them keep the same script and same cast.
I think the answer to that hypothetical was somewhat answered by Cowboys & Aliens.
Favreau goes for the grimdark with a more-than-capable cast, but I don't think the material stood up to the tone they were trying to achieve (which, admittedly, is all over the goddamned place).
Bottom line: I think Favreau could have pulled off Batman Begins (probably with a little better photography of the action scenes), but he couldn't touch The Dark Knight with a ten-foot pole.
After IM2 and CaA I feel confident in saying that the first Iron Man wasn't(just) Favreau.
To be fair, Favreau wasn't having such a great time on IM2. There was a good deal of studio oversight and pressure to include Avengers material. And I think the three story credits and the five screenwriting credits on Cowboys and Aliens (none of which were Favreau) says a whole hell of a lot about that production.
2) So, what happens if Pilate (or Judas, or Peter, or the Pharisees) came to their senses and stopped the crucifixion? They're the villains and cowards of this tale, right? What's the lesson here? Blaming anyone for enabling the most important moment of Christianity seems, at its most polite, completely fucking stupid. "Oh, that damnable Judas! How dare he ensure our eternal salvation!"
I think you have to take the character of Judas like you do the kingslayer in Game of Thrones.
Sure they were having a war to usurp the king, but the guy who ended up doing the king in was one of the people sworn personally to protect him. So yeah, he helped win the war, but he did it by betrayal which is a huge problem for these folks.
As far as Watchmen goes, it has a couple of major issues. One, the comic was done in such a way as to truly utilize the medium of the comic book itself to tell a story that could only be told in comic form.
The movie, on the other hand, was not only slavishly devoted to the comic, but didn't subvert the superhero movie the same way the comic subverted the comic book. Thus, you end up with what basically amounts to a version of Watchmen for people who can't be bothered to actually read the thing.
What you have to do is create a world in which the comic fits. I feel that both Chris Nolan and Jon Favreau did this admirably.
We kicked it around one night on what would happen if you went back and switched Favreau to Batman and Nolan to Iron Man but made them keep the same script and same cast.
I think the answer to that hypothetical was somewhat answered by Cowboys & Aliens.
Favreau goes for the grimdark with a more-than-capable cast, but I don't think the material stood up to the tone they were trying to achieve (which, admittedly, is all over the goddamned place).
Bottom line: I think Favreau could have pulled off Batman Begins (probably with a little better photography of the action scenes), but he couldn't touch The Dark Knight with a ten-foot pole.
After IM2 and CaA I feel confident in saying that the first Iron Man wasn't(just) Favreau.
To be fair, Favreau wasn't having such a great time on IM2. There was a good deal of studio oversight and pressure to include Avengers material. And I think the three story credits and the five screenwriting credits on Cowboys and Aliens (none of which were Favreau) says a whole hell of a lot about that production.
Problem being that the Avengers stuff was some of the best stuff in the movie.
The real flaws are within the core of the movie. The sickness is stupid. The Villain(Whiplash) was ineffectual and the whole thing feels maraudering.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Plus it's about the only part of the film (other than the absence of squiditude) that doesn't follow the comic so closely it feels stifled by it. I thought Watchmen was one of the best Moore adaptations, but it is almost slavishly devoted to the original, at least on a surface level.
I still don't know how I feel about the film. I think part of that has to do with the fact that I knew the source material so well prior to seeing the film that it's the kind of thing that really distorts your perception of how successful the film actually was. Much the same way fans of the books endlessly defend the not-so-good cinematic versions of the Harry Potter series and The Hunger Games, I'm not sure my objectivity is 100% intact, thanks to the film being so slavishly devoted to the material.
My favorite cut of the film is indeed the Ultimate Cut, which clocks in at almost 4 hours, and it's such an engaging and fascinating experience, but I'm so close to it I don't know if it's "good" or not anymore. It's definitely unlike just about anything else out there, and it's always gorgeous to look at.
I love the comic but feel indifferent to the film. I haven't seen the ultimate cut but the film just didn't really engage me.
I think it's just that you can't do a film like a comic.
I think Sin City proved that's not entirely true, but I will agree that just plastering the pages on the screen isn't the same thing as making a successful movie. When you read, especially something visual like comics, your brain filters out all the ridiculous shit and lets you focus on the story and details. If it didn't, Jim Lee would never work again.
What you have to do is create a world in which the comic fits. I feel that both Chris Nolan and Jon Favreau did this admirably.
I'd say Sin City has problems with it too, though less so and probably because of the noir-thing which works in film too. Some comics are easier to film than others.
I believe the nature of a medium leads to certain directions in the story and what the focus is laid on. With regards to reading the ability to stop and think, to re-read and to focus on small details without missing anything leads to a more extensive and complicated story. There is time. A film doesn't have the luxury of time, so it has to convey the essence of things in a different way. As you said Nolan and Favreau do an excellent job of getting the point across because they don't do what the comic does but what a film does. They are always making a film first, they understand that films aren't just about visuals.
Iron Man 1 isn't the greatest either. It's just the origin story is well established enough that RDJ can just throw the whole film on his back and drag the entire film to goodness with quality character work.
It's really noticeable how the plot and movie just fall apart when it stops being all about him.
Iron Man 1 isn't the greatest either. It's just the origin story is well established enough that RDJ can just throw the whole film on his back and drag the entire film to goodness with quality character work.
It's really noticeable how the plot and movie just fall apart when it stops being all about him.
I disagree that it was all RDJ. Though he did have a lot to do with it. The Action scenes are also probably the most competent and fun of any superhero film in the last ten years. The desert fight especially was really fun.
nightmarenny on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
What you have to do is create a world in which the comic fits. I feel that both Chris Nolan and Jon Favreau did this admirably.
We kicked it around one night on what would happen if you went back and switched Favreau to Batman and Nolan to Iron Man but made them keep the same script and same cast.
I think the answer to that hypothetical was somewhat answered by Cowboys & Aliens.
Favreau goes for the grimdark with a more-than-capable cast, but I don't think the material stood up to the tone they were trying to achieve (which, admittedly, is all over the goddamned place).
Bottom line: I think Favreau could have pulled off Batman Begins (probably with a little better photography of the action scenes), but he couldn't touch The Dark Knight with a ten-foot pole.
After IM2 and CaA I feel confident in saying that the first Iron Man wasn't(just) Favreau.
To be fair, Favreau wasn't having such a great time on IM2. There was a good deal of studio oversight and pressure to include Avengers material. And I think the three story credits and the five screenwriting credits on Cowboys and Aliens (none of which were Favreau) says a whole hell of a lot about that production.
Problem being that the Avengers stuff was some of the best stuff in the movie.
The real flaws are within the core of the movie. The sickness is stupid. The Villain(Whiplash) was ineffectual and the whole thing feels maraudering.
Agreed. The best parts of the film are the bits where Downey and Jackson interact, or Downey and Paltrow. The rest of the film is utterly aimless and completely without stakes.
But I'm hoping for good stuff with Shane Black. I might not should, but I am.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Plus it's about the only part of the film (other than the absence of squiditude) that doesn't follow the comic so closely it feels stifled by it. I thought Watchmen was one of the best Moore adaptations, but it is almost slavishly devoted to the original, at least on a surface level.
I still don't know how I feel about the film. I think part of that has to do with the fact that I knew the source material so well prior to seeing the film that it's the kind of thing that really distorts your perception of how successful the film actually was. Much the same way fans of the books endlessly defend the not-so-good cinematic versions of the Harry Potter series and The Hunger Games, I'm not sure my objectivity is 100% intact, thanks to the film being so slavishly devoted to the material.
My favorite cut of the film is indeed the Ultimate Cut, which clocks in at almost 4 hours, and it's such an engaging and fascinating experience, but I'm so close to it I don't know if it's "good" or not anymore. It's definitely unlike just about anything else out there, and it's always gorgeous to look at.
I love the comic but feel indifferent to the film. I haven't seen the ultimate cut but the film just didn't really engage me.
I think it's just that you can't do a film like a comic.
I think Sin City proved that's not entirely true, but I will agree that just plastering the pages on the screen isn't the same thing as making a successful movie. When you read, especially something visual like comics, your brain filters out all the ridiculous shit and lets you focus on the story and details. If it didn't, Jim Lee would never work again.
What you have to do is create a world in which the comic fits. I feel that both Chris Nolan and Jon Favreau did this admirably.
I'd say Sin City has problems with it too, though less so and probably because of the noir-thing which works in film too. Some comics are easier to film than others.
I believe the nature of a medium leads to certain directions in the story and what the focus is laid on. With regards to reading the ability to stop and think, to re-read and to focus on small details without missing anything leads to a more extensive and complicated story. There is time. A film doesn't have the luxury of time, so it has to convey the essence of things in a different way. As you said Nolan and Favreau do an excellent job of getting the point across because they don't do what the comic does but what a film does. They are always making a film first, they understand that films aren't just about visuals.
The visual aesthetic of a film, as well as its camera work, can inform and dictate the narrative, but they can't be the narrative. A plot isn't about how the deep focus of a shot highlights spacial distance within a frame; a plot can about people who are distant, and that is informed by the visual composition.
But the story has to pass basic competency in terms of narrative structure and conflict for the audience to even care. Despite some frequent exaggeration, watching a great actor read the phonebook for 2 hours is NOT engaging nor entertaining.
Posts
I came to it under similar circumstances, but I've gotten pretty comfortable with the idea that the movie just isn't that great.
Zack Snyder isn't an actor's director. The acting alternates between stolid understatement and Greek tragedy. There is quite a great deal of room in between those extremes that isn't occupied frequently, which I think speaks to Snyder's larger problem: I really don't think he gets tone. This is probably why whenever we're in those war room scenes we have ridiculous Strangelove caricatures that turns the film into something approaching (but not committing to) self-parody. At other moments, we have some deadly sincerity that feels a bit cheap positioned between such borderline farce. It's incredible that a movie that is actually very well-structured can feel so fragmented, and I really think it has everything to do with some real dramatic confusion behind the camera.
This becomes some pretty serious tension in the action. Watchmen was not an action-packed book, but hey, this is a comic book film, so let's kick some ass. I'm sympathetic to this, but again, the tonal choices are pretty questionable. We have almost two full acts of having it suggested that Dan and the others were really sort of pathetic, and that their actions were morally questionable. But once he and Lorie don the suits, the camera treats them with all the reverence offered to Superman, complete with swells of music. A smarter film would have brought some of that borderline self-parody to bear on moments like those, but instead the film sabotages its own well-established themes in the service of some kinda lame superhero film tropes. You can make the argument that it tries, but the film is clearly in love with its slo-mo badassery in much the same way 300 had been. It's the wrong choice for material that is so eminently not about stable "heroes."
Crap.
Then again, he's barely in the book.
Thinking back on all of this, you know how probably could have gotten this movie perfect? Cronenberg.
After less then a minute, I can tell you.
SO SO bad.
Nothing about this thing is even mediocre. Every single aspect of this film is terrible beyond even the wildest dreams of the PT.
Let's try this again, thread.
That's the Apostles' Creed (not, sadly, a fantastically bizarre video game), and odds are it's said at your church. Clearly, it vilifies Pilate, as does most of the loose confederation of Christianity, which is strange for at least two reasons-
1) Pilate didn't really do all that much. Jesus' condemnation was at the behest of the Pharisees and the political games being played within the area.
2) So, what happens if Pilate (or Judas, or Peter, or the Pharisees) came to their senses and stopped the crucifixion? They're the villains and cowards of this tale, right? What's the lesson here? Blaming anyone for enabling the most important moment of Christianity seems, at its most polite, completely fucking stupid. "Oh, that damnable Judas! How dare he ensure our eternal salvation!"
The Last Temptation of Christ tries to deal with those paradoxes in faith, and while I don't know that it clears the bar 100%, it comes close, and I really appreciate that Scorsese actualizes that inequity by basically telling traditional interpretations to go take a leap. It keeps Jesus both magic AND human, and I think seeing that incarnate rather than churning through a fluffy and genteel Sunday School story is what ruffled all those feathers. Put into a realistic context (and hey, ain't Jesus supposed to be real?), Jesus is not only a raving lunatic and a mysterious wizard, but he's also prone to passionate violence and basic weirdness.
Why people can't reconcile the Jesus the read about with the Jesus they can see doing the same exact things, I'll never guess.
Yeah, keep those brilliant ideas coming, Lucas. You've scraped the barrel on this franchise so hard, you're picking up splinters from the floorboards it rests upon.
I disagree with this. The Clone Wars film is nowhere near the prequel trilogy's terrible quality. It's mediocre at best. It acts like a pilot to a tv series, not a big budget film though it did have a decent scale. The story isn't groundbreaking, yet it does not have the plot-holes that the prequels did. Then again, I'm in the minority who like Ahsoka.
Harry Potter was JK Rowling's doing. She insisted on British kids to headline the cast and she coordinated with the writers of the script.
Steven Spielberg was originally set to direct, but since he wanted Haley Joel Osment to be Potter. When JK Rowling set her foot down, he bailed.
Not to knock HJO but Harry Potter he aint.
Spielberg also wanted the stories to take place in America, not England. Thankfully this didn't happen.
It says he suffered under Pontius Pilate. As in, under his care/rule/etc, he suffered.
Pontius Pilate is not seen as unrepetantly evil or something. Even the Gospels themselves emphasize the pharisees role more then his.
It's awful. Acting, writing, animation, pacing, everything. Calling this thing mediocre is an insult to every movie that has ever aspired to adequacy.
But what's wrong with nonsensical plots?
(I really liked Akira when I saw it when I was 13 or so but I haven't seen it since.)
I love the comic but feel indifferent to the film. I haven't seen the ultimate cut but the film just didn't really engage me.
I think it's just that you can't do a film like a comic.
Yeah. I wish I could articulate why I don't like films without just pointing to superficialities or going "but it's just..I.. I don't know".
They weren't going to fake the accent. Harry was going to be an American along with everybody else, excluding non-British characters.
What makes it worse is that it's actually a string of mediocre episodes from the middle of the season. It cuts the episodes that establish the action and the climatic episode, which adds another level of narrative confusion.
Its a tv pilot that was released to cinemas because WB wanted a Star Wars film released under their name. More correctly they threatened to cancel the entire tv show if Lucas didn't allow them to string the first 3-4 episodes into a film. Since Lucas had already sunk several millions into the show and set up an entire unit of his company to produce them, he folded.
Thats why its so bad, its TV quality CGI that was meant to be shown in several parts on the small screen. The show is fuck awesome and the CGI on the last season was very good. Not everything bad about Star Wars is George Lucas' fault... except the Truman Capote the Hutt.
I think a lot of that actually has to do with a much more modern effort to absolve the ancient Judaic sects of Christ's martyrdom as to reduce inflammatory anti-semetic rhetoric. Romans, today, get most of the blame for Christ's death, despite the fact that it was much more at the feet of the Jewish leadership of the day.
Whichever the case, it doesn't matter if Jews killed Christ or if Romans killed Christ because, really, isn't it pretty important that Christ ends up dead on that crucifix regardless? Christ needs to die in order to be Christ.
Also it was funny because Marky Mark was buff, but hardly a huge dude.
Holy shit
I think Sin City proved that's not entirely true, but I will agree that just plastering the pages on the screen isn't the same thing as making a successful movie. When you read, especially something visual like comics, your brain filters out all the ridiculous shit and lets you focus on the story and details. If it didn't, Jim Lee would never work again.
What you have to do is create a world in which the comic fits. I feel that both Chris Nolan and Jon Favreau did this admirably.
We kicked it around one night on what would happen if you went back and switched Favreau to Batman and Nolan to Iron Man but made them keep the same script and same cast.
I think the answer to that hypothetical was somewhat answered by Cowboys & Aliens.
Favreau goes for the grimdark with a more-than-capable cast, but I don't think the material stood up to the tone they were trying to achieve (which, admittedly, is all over the goddamned place).
Bottom line: I think Favreau could have pulled off Batman Begins (probably with a little better photography of the action scenes), but he couldn't touch The Dark Knight with a ten-foot pole.
After IM2 and CaA I feel confident in saying that the first Iron Man wasn't(just) Favreau.
To be fair, Favreau wasn't having such a great time on IM2. There was a good deal of studio oversight and pressure to include Avengers material. And I think the three story credits and the five screenwriting credits on Cowboys and Aliens (none of which were Favreau) says a whole hell of a lot about that production.
I think you have to take the character of Judas like you do the kingslayer in Game of Thrones.
As far as Watchmen goes, it has a couple of major issues. One, the comic was done in such a way as to truly utilize the medium of the comic book itself to tell a story that could only be told in comic form.
The movie, on the other hand, was not only slavishly devoted to the comic, but didn't subvert the superhero movie the same way the comic subverted the comic book. Thus, you end up with what basically amounts to a version of Watchmen for people who can't be bothered to actually read the thing.
Problem being that the Avengers stuff was some of the best stuff in the movie.
The real flaws are within the core of the movie. The sickness is stupid. The Villain(Whiplash) was ineffectual and the whole thing feels maraudering.
I'd say Sin City has problems with it too, though less so and probably because of the noir-thing which works in film too. Some comics are easier to film than others.
I believe the nature of a medium leads to certain directions in the story and what the focus is laid on. With regards to reading the ability to stop and think, to re-read and to focus on small details without missing anything leads to a more extensive and complicated story. There is time. A film doesn't have the luxury of time, so it has to convey the essence of things in a different way. As you said Nolan and Favreau do an excellent job of getting the point across because they don't do what the comic does but what a film does. They are always making a film first, they understand that films aren't just about visuals.
It's really noticeable how the plot and movie just fall apart when it stops being all about him.
It's like the Space channel wants me to remove it from my cable package.
Fuck it, I'm watching Alien tonight.
I disagree that it was all RDJ. Though he did have a lot to do with it. The Action scenes are also probably the most competent and fun of any superhero film in the last ten years. The desert fight especially was really fun.
Agreed. The best parts of the film are the bits where Downey and Jackson interact, or Downey and Paltrow. The rest of the film is utterly aimless and completely without stakes.
But I'm hoping for good stuff with Shane Black. I might not should, but I am.
The visual aesthetic of a film, as well as its camera work, can inform and dictate the narrative, but they can't be the narrative. A plot isn't about how the deep focus of a shot highlights spacial distance within a frame; a plot can about people who are distant, and that is informed by the visual composition.
But the story has to pass basic competency in terms of narrative structure and conflict for the audience to even care. Despite some frequent exaggeration, watching a great actor read the phonebook for 2 hours is NOT engaging nor entertaining.